NASA’s Commercial Crew gains support in Congress

Space X's success may be inducing Congressional opponents to back off.

It appears that SpaceX's success with the Dragon spacecraft has won some much-needed space in the US House of Representatives. Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) announced Tuesday that his office reached a truce with NASA regarding the Commercial Crew program. Under the agreement, Wolf will lower his opposition to Commercial Crew and hopefully help NASA gain better funding.

Wolf chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, which controls NASA's budget. His subcommittee has consistently hit the Commercial Crew Development program (CCDev) with heavy cuts. NASA Administrator Bolden has stated that the cuts have delayed access to the Space Station by American vehicles by at least a year, with this year's cuts expected to delay American access again. In hearings, some of Wolf's subcommittee members have seemed intent on using the coming Space Launch System (SLS) to ferry astronauts to the Space Station, even though this service would come at a price that's about ten times higher.

In April, Wolf included language in the 2013 spending bill's accompanying report that stopped just short of requiring NASA to drop its Commercial Crew competition. Wolf wanted NASA to immediately downsize the program from the current four competitors to either a single "competitor" or a well-funded leader and a weakly funded follower. Commercial space backers have worried that the language would succeed in essentially discontinuing CCDev, given that similar tactics have been used in the Senate.

One fear was that new commercial space companies would be swept away and the job of ferrying astronauts would be given to Boeing, one of the two traditional contractors. The other usual contractor, Lockheed-Martin, is already signed on for NASA's Orion spacecraft. Because the US government is still the only major customer for ferrying humans to orbit, development of a more competitive space industry could be severely curtailed.

On the other hand, support for the newcomers in the commercial space industry has been growing. The topsy-turvy situation, in which Democrats support a new private space industry and Republicans fiercely oppose it, has been questioned on the Republican side, and the recent berthing of the first commercial space capsule with the International Space Station appears to have finally turned the tide. Several members of Wolf's subcommittee who were recalcitrant before the Dragon mission have since made positive announcements. With more tests and launches coming later in the year, Wolf appears to have cut a deal before sentiments shifted again.

Wolf's announcement suggests a compromise agreement wherein Wolf will basically back off of his report's language in return for NASA agreeing to chop CCDev down to two-and-a-half funded competitors (two full awards and one partial award) rather than four. Wolf would back a NASA budget that more closely matched the current Senate funding level, which is slightly more than what his committee recommended on the House side. More importantly, he would not push for language in the new law to require the downselect to a single launch provider.

2013 will be the last year of Commercial Crew general development funding, and any continuing contracts must be made under traditional Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). NASA has been using Space Act Agreements to fund the competitors in order to save money. SAAs don't require NASA to be embedded in the contractor and therefore cut costs by at least half.

NASA will define a strategy for moving to FARs and communicate it to Wolf's office.

NASA will collect a host of financial and management information on its Commercial Crew partners to verify their ability to complete their contracts.

NASA will require compliance with statutory and regulatory controls on export of anything developed under the Commercial Crew program.

All of this language is somewhat strange because NASA is already doing most of this. Because Congress chopped its 2013 budget request for CCDev again this year, it seemed likely that NASA would not be able to sustain four competitors anyway. The agency had also announced that it would be transitioning to FARS for general acquisitions, and it already collects financial information on the four competitors. And export controls already prevent shipping of any kind of rocket technology overseas. Accordingly, it doesn't seem like Wolf is really getting anything new.

Wolf's office also provided a link to a letter Administrator Bolden wrote in reply, thanking him for his trust. In the letter, Bolden stipulates that if Wolf wants American vehicles taking astronauts to the International Space Station sooner, the funding Wolf's committee cut from NASA's budget request needs to be restored.

That could actually happen. It's entirely possible that NASA's budget bill will be punted to next year because of the elections, and Congress will pass a continuing resolution instead. In a longshot scenario, additional money would be added to that bill if enough support is present in Congress to get it done. Whether or not the funding is restored, it does seem that SpaceX's victory is yielding some tangible political payoffs for NASA as well.

32 Reader Comments

Of course as soon as they transition to FAR contracts, you can bet Wolf and others that have been openly hostile to Commercial Crew, will do their best to direct business to their districts in order to bring home the pork. If SAA's save us half the cost and huge amounts of time, why would we want to go to FAR agreements for the remaining work that needs to be done? Sure doesn't help NASA or the taxpayers.

i wonder how much boeing and lockheed have spent on lobbying to keep their status as the ONLY TWO companies for ferrying astronauts. as if i needed more evidence that our elected officials are corporate whores. i hope elon and the like (will virgin galactic carry payloads for nasa?) break-in.

This is exactly why NASA should not be in the space exploitation business. Politicians get in the way and gum up the advancement of technology. Can you imagine where the internet would be if ARPANET had had the "congressional oversight" that NASA has had? Once a project or program turns into pork, real progress will slow as the administrators can no longer change course without the congresspeople whose districts would possibly lose out blocking them.

Lockheed already has the Orion contract and manufactures the Atlas V, which, since it is the closest to being human-rated, is the most likely launch vehicles to be put to use by vendors not SpaceX. I'd bet it shakes out as follows:

Boeing gets a contract for CCDev manned launch vehicle development using their proposed capsule, the CST-100. This keeps the traditional contractor(s) busy, if not fat and happy. The CST-100 is designed to work with Atlas or Delta; but, will likely use Atlas. This means Lockheed also gets a peice of the action. Congressmen and Senators can then say they have saved and/or created jobs in their districts where Boeing and Lockheed have facilities.

SpaceX gets funding to develop the manned version of the Dragon, allowing the "upstart" who is promising the lowest launch prices to continue work, and everyone in Congress saves face following the Dragon's successful visit to the ISS.

Trivial funding goes to Sierra Nevada to keep working on Dream Chaser. Since that vehicle started as a NASA HL-20 anyway, it would seem pallatable to the massed Congress members and to the naysayers at NASA itself.

Lockheed already has the Orion contract and manufactures the Atlas V, which, since it is the closest to being human-rated, is the most likely launch vehicles to be put to use by vendors not SpaceX. I'd bet it shakes out as follows:

Boeing gets a contract for CCDev manned launch vehicle development using their proposed capsule, the CST-100. This keeps the traditional contractor(s) busy, if not fat and happy. The CST-100 is designed to work with Atlas or Delta; but, will likely use Atlas. This means Lockheed also gets a peice of the action. Congressmen and Senators can then say they have saved and/or created jobs in their districts where Boeing and Lockheed have facilities.

SpaceX gets funding to develop the manned version of the Dragon, allowing the "upstart" who is promising the lowest launch prices to continue work, and everyone in Congress saves face following the Dragon's successful visit to the ISS.

Trivial funding goes to Sierra Nevada to keep working on Dream Chaser. Since that vehicle started as a NASA HL-20 anyway, it would seem pallatable to the massed Congress members and to the naysayers at NASA itself.

Sad to say i agree. starting to think i should start a corporation, just to have the level of representation with local government that we're all supposed to have from the start.

The topsy-turvy situation, in which Democrats support a new private space industry and Republicans fiercely oppose it,

Why is the party traditionally in favour of "low government control" and "reduced taxes" want to oppose private space flight and the party who tends to be more "government oversight" and "government spending" want private space flight? US political parties are so strange.

Also, I don't know much about government contracting but it seems that having FOUR simultaneous alternatives is a little much? Two seems okay, that way you get two relatively diverse solutions but four seems like a waste of money.

The reason is because back in the day, NASA went to the moon and all the stuff to beat up on Ruskies. Since then, Republicans want to preserve NASA as a government run operation due to nationalistic bent.

I suppose the post image is supposed to be ovaled? But yes, same old Gov -> NASA -> "Private" (Lockheed and Boeing). Despite being excellent companies, they aren't considered private at all having a direct bank account from NASA, a continuous ring cycle of control.

Besides pork and nationalism, the Republicans simply don't like new-money techologists such as Elon Musk who aspire to change the world. They like the world just the way it is, thank you very much, and these uppity dreamers don't know their place in the power structure.

This is the conservative argument. It's not about public vs. private or the pros and cons of various government procurement schemes. This is about doing things the way they've always been done, and it's about the culture wars.

Three phrases that the Republicans never want to hear: I know what you're doing wrong; I know how to do it better; I told you so.

Besides pork and nationalism, the Republicans simply don't like new-money techologists such as Elon Musk who aspire to change the world. They like the world just the way it is, thank you very much, and these uppity dreamers don't know their place in the power structure.

This is the conservative argument. It's not about public vs. private or the pros and cons of various government procurement schemes. This is about doing things the way they've always been done, and it's about the culture wars.

Three phrases that the Republicans never want to hear: I know what you're doing wrong; I know how to do it better; I told you so.

SpaceX is all about those three statements.

Good job trying to politicize it. It always shakes out one of two ways.

It's simpler than that--Republicans represent many of the areas where NASA space centers and traditional contractors are based. The CCDev path represents a cut to these programs, and hence less money entering their districts and a corresponding loss of jobs.

SpaceX has been able to achieve what it has at such a low cost in part because it's been able to remove itself from the overly conservative safety culture at NASA. Spaceflight is dangerous--the first real challenge to commercial spaceflight will happen when the casualties are suffered. Challenger nearly killed STS, and certainly made it much less economical. Columbia did the program in. The shuttle may have been poorly conceived, but it would have been much more effective if the nation had any stomach for the risks involved.

SpaceX has been able to achieve what it has at such a low cost in part because it's been able to remove itself from the overly conservative safety culture at NASA. Spaceflight is dangerous--the first real challenge to commercial spaceflight will happen when the casualties are suffered. Challenger nearly killed STS, and certainly made it much less economical. Columbia did the program in. The shuttle may have been poorly conceived, but it would have been much more effective if the nation had any stomach for the risks involved.

Oh please. Making space travel safe has little to do with the cost NASA has. Politics is what caused NASA's costs to be so great.

SpaceX has done nothing particularly reckless or un-safe in their approach to space.

The topsy-turvy situation, in which Democrats support a new private space industry and Republicans fiercely oppose it,

Why is the party traditionally in favour of "low government control" and "reduced taxes" want to oppose private space flight and the party who tends to be more "government oversight" and "government spending" want private space flight? US political parties are so strange.

Also, I don't know much about government contracting but it seems that having FOUR simultaneous alternatives is a little much? Two seems okay, that way you get two relatively diverse solutions but four seems like a waste of money.

You've got to take into consideration the effects of competition on price as well. Also, if we were to cut out the 'war on' series, we'd have plenty of money to fund lots of space endeavors.

The topsy-turvy situation, in which Democrats support a new private space industry and Republicans fiercely oppose it,

Why is the party traditionally in favour of "low government control" and "reduced taxes" want to oppose private space flight and the party who tends to be more "government oversight" and "government spending" want private space flight? US political parties are so strange.

Not really. Both parties are defined more by laundry lists of specific issues than any overarching political philosophy. In the end it all comes down to money.

It's a Congresscritter's job to represent the interests of his or her district, so anything that brings jobs and economic opportunity to their district will get their support, and anything that threatens to take those jobs away will be opposed. Your pork is my job and vice versa.

Commercial Crew threatens to supplant much of the legacy space manufacturing sector, much of which is in Republican districts. So Republicans are generally down on Commercial Crew. Some of the major players in Commercial Crew (namely Musk) are heavy contributors to the Democratic party, so Democrats generally favor Commercial Crew.

Yeah, that's simplistic and reductionist. It's also mostly true.

Quote:

Also, I don't know much about government contracting but it seems that having FOUR simultaneous alternatives is a little much? Two seems okay, that way you get two relatively diverse solutions but four seems like a waste of money.

It's not guaranteed that SpaceX (or OSC, or Sierra Nevada, or even fucking Boeing) are going to be able to deliver on their promises. SpaceX has made the most progress so far, but it's still an open question as to whether they can support the flight rates they're contracting for, and whether they'll be able to make money. If we downselect prematurely, we may wind up with vendors who can't deliver.

Besides pork and nationalism, the Republicans simply don't like new-money techologists such as Elon Musk who aspire to change the world. They like the world just the way it is, thank you very much, and these uppity dreamers don't know their place in the power structure.

This is the conservative argument. It's not about public vs. private or the pros and cons of various government procurement schemes. This is about doing things the way they've always been done, and it's about the culture wars.

Three phrases that the Republicans never want to hear: I know what you're doing wrong; I know how to do it better; I told you so.

SpaceX is all about those three statements.

Good job trying to politicize it. It always shakes out one of two ways.

"Those who say something cannot be done, should not stand in the way of those who are actually doing it".

Nature (the scientific weekly) had a Podcast recently where they interviewed Musk. If all goes well, he estimates that he'll be able to go to Mars in about 12 years. "Everybody knows" that this cannot be done; why, NASA says it would take more like 30 years.

It's not that long ago that NASA and govt. officials stated they they would be unable to repeat Apollo (i.e., go to the Moon in <10 years from the word Go), regardless of funding. This tells you something about the way they think. SpaceX thinks much more like the Apollo era, with an additional eye out for costs; being able to do things in a (relatively) cheap and efficient way is *far* more important than the last 5%, unless you are doing something really revolutionary or dangerous (nuke bombs).

SpaceX has created a booster rocket, a reusable capsule, flown to orbit, rendezvoused with another spacecraft; all at a small fraction of the cost that others have spent (and are spending) to do so. They are demonstrably good at what they do: which is to take existing knowledge (technology, economics, business acumen) and combine it in a very efficient way with their own innovations. Doing commercial transport to low earth orbit falls squarely into this realm and I expect them to excel at it.

What will be really exciting to watch is how their approach will work when pushing the limits, because going to Mars is seriously harder than going to the Moon - we've been to the Moon, you can read all about it and build on that mass of knowledge.

If I could choose where to work today... I'd be applying to SpaceX. Maybe, just maybe, they can become what NASA was in the 60's.

Typical Republican response. They're too deeply vested in space program pork to really accept any of this. Funny how the "smaller government" crowd is always shown to be hypocrites when we try to privatize things that line their pockets and the pockets of their southern constituents. Oh well, LOL Republicans per usual. Anti-progress is their motto.

>We've been out of Iraq for nearly a year now.

You haven't paid for George Bush's overseas adventures yet. Its part of the deficit. We'll be living with the aftermath of Iraq for decades.

Typical Republican response. They're too deeply vested in space program pork to really accept any of this. Funny how the "smaller government" crowd is always shown to be hypocrites when we try to privatize things that line their pockets and the pockets of their southern constituents. Oh well, LOL Republicans per usual. Anti-progress is their motto.

>We've been out of Iraq for nearly a year now.

You haven't paid for George Bush's overseas adventures yet. Its part of the deficit. We'll be living with the aftermath of Iraq for decades.

I'm not arguing that, it doesn't change the fact that he implied we were still in Iraq ("pay for two extra days"), when the fact is, we're not, and we're trying to get out of Aghanistan (and they're trying to get us out.)

You haven't paid for George Bush's overseas adventures yet. Its part of the deficit.

You mean the debt. Which is true, somewhat. Since money is fungible, it's pretty difficult to say the debt is caused by any one thing. Like, if I spend 110% of my income equally on hookers, blackjack, and booze, it's not really possible to say that my 10% deficit is specifically the fault of the hookers, the blackjack, or the booze, because without any one of them there would be no deficit.

You haven't paid for George Bush's overseas adventures yet. Its part of the deficit.

You mean the debt. Which is true, somewhat. Since money is fungible, it's pretty difficult to say the debt is caused by any one thing. Like, if I spend 110% of my income equally on hookers, blackjack, and booze, it's not really possible to say that my 10% deficit is specifically the fault of the hookers, the blackjack, or the booze, because without any one of them there would be no deficit.

While true, you can reasonably place blame on unnecessary wars prosecuted under false pretenses. Bush tax policies didn't help either, but that's a drop in inflowing money, the unnecessary wars of aggression are clear, quantifiable costs for no gain. Even more impressive was Bush managing to cause economic decline during a time of war, when traditionally war has been extremely good for the US economy.

That could actually happen. It's entirely possible that NASA's budget bill will be punted to next year because of the elections, and Congress will pass a continuing resolution instead.

The unfortunate thing is if there is a new president elected to office and a regime change, NASA's funding and future will be uncertain for more like a year and a half. It will generally take 6-9 months before the White House points it's eye towards NASA and normally, a new administrator will follow. Then the bickering starts back up again between the White House/new administrator and congresscritters.

All in all, they'll be living CR to CR until all of that goes down.

Best one could hope for is the private companies simply put their head down and get 'er done during that time.

Oh please. Making space travel safe has little to do with the cost NASA has. Politics is what caused NASA's costs to be so great.

SpaceX has done nothing particularly reckless or un-safe in their approach to space.

I didn't say they were reckless, but I am rather familiar with both NASA and SpaceX's design, analysis and test processes. NASA analyzes things to death and hires outside contractors to analyze it again and again, then tests components in huge experimental setups with expensive facilities and tons of instrumentation. Failing these tests is not an option because of the expense and perceived public backlash. So NASA projects often spiral out of control as every failure mode, regardless of likelihood, is investigated. Political interference can break projects, but NASA HQ is actually pretty good about minimizing the effects and to their credit, really does care more about accomplishing something than pushing money and jobs into congressional districts. NASA can and does push back.

SpaceX, on the other hand, designs, tests, breaks, and redesigns components until they work, with much less reliance on computational analysis and much more limited test apparatus; however, since this testing is much cheaper and SpaceX management is less afraid of failure, they can iterate on a design much more quickly and at much lower cost. SpaceX believes 100 cheap trials are a good as one comprehensive mega-trial. As a semi-related anecdote, an acquaintance of mine who works there as an engineer tells me that, if for example some heavy crates are in the way of your equipment, you hop into the nearest forklift and move them aside to get the job done. At NASA, you'd need special training to be authorized to that job, and practically speaking would have to wait some hours for the paperwork to be completed and a trained contractor to arrive in his approved forklift.

The SpaceX approach is riskier, in that they have reasonable expectations of risk, but is able to get things done just like Von Braun's NASA did--today's NASA has the unreasonable expectation risks should be made infinitesimal, and it's paralyzing because that standard is far too costly. The STS incidents taught us the wrong lesson; a zero-tolerance for risk is unrealistic and the public and politicians need to accept that. I think SpaceX is absolutely doing things the right way, but it's definitely perceived as riskier without the huge process and accompanying paper trail NASA has developed over many decades and several deaths. When a manned Dragon explodes, and over enough flights any spacecraft will, SpaceX will have the fight of its life ahead of it.